Scientists vote "Blade Runner" best ever sci-fi film

mike65

This from Reuters

LONDON (Reuters) - "Blade Runner", a bleak vision of the future set in Los Angeles, has been voted best sci-film of all time by a group of international scientists, according to a poll published by the Guardian newspaper on Thursday.

Stanley Kubrick's classic "2001: A Space Odyssey" was voted second, while Luke Skywalker's moral journey through "Star Wars" and "The Empire Strikes Back" -- the first films in the Star Wars trilogy -- helped secure third equal spot.

"Blade Runner is the best film ever made," Dr. Stephen Minger, a stem cell biologist at King's College London, told the newspaper.

"It was so far ahead of it time and the whole premise of the story -- what is it to be human and who are we, where we come from? It's the age-old questions," he said.

The newspaper interviewed 56 eminent international scientists for the poll from fields as diverse as quantum physics and zoology.

In fourth position was "Alien", directed by Ridley Scott, in which a bloody creature bursting out of John Hurt's chest has become one of the most enduring images of modern cinema.

"Solaris", directed by Andrei Tarkovksy secured fifth position.

"The 1972 Solaris is perhaps the only film to address the limits of science set by our constrained human perceptions, categories and tendency to anthropomorphise," said physics professor Gregory Benford, from the University of California.

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger had his day made, finding himself in sixth position with "Terminator", released in 1984, and "T2:Judgement Day", released in 1991.

"The Day the Earth Stood Still", the tale of an alien landing in Washington to tell earthlings to live peacefully, secured seventh position while HG Wells' "War of the Worlds" came in at eighth.

"The Matrix", starring Keanu Reeves as Neo, a computer hacker who discovers the world he lives in might be artificially constructed, was voted ninth best sci-fi film.

In tenth position was Stephen Spielberg's "Close Encounters of the Third Kind", an ultimately positive reflection of what it will be like when aliens get here.

The poll also found that Isaac Asimov was the scientists' favourite author, followed by British writers John Wyndham and Fred Hoyle.

Top Ten


1. Blade Runner (1982)
2. 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
3. Star Wars (1977)/The Empire Strikes Back (1980)
4. Alien (1979)
5. Solaris (1972)
6. Terminator (1984)/T2: Judgement day (1991)
7. Day the Earth stood still (1951)
8. War of the Worlds (1953)
9. The Matrix (1999)
10. Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)

Hmmmm would take issue with Star Wars/Empire as they are pure fantasy
thier only contribution is technical. Alien is really just a haunted house flick even if it is a really good one.

Mike.

ixoy

Took the words out of my mouth - from a science POV there's no way Star Wars should be in there. It might be fun but hardly a reflection of accurate science or scientific possibilities nor was it meant to be.
I wonder if it was a poll done in the Channel 4 style where the paper had already compiled a list of ten movies and just got the scientists to rank them?

Cake Fiend

ixoy wrote:

It might be fun but hardly a reflection of accurate science or scientific possibilities

Inter-galactic space travel (hyperspace travel), technologically advanced vehicles (space transporters and fighters, land speeders, 'AT' walkers), technologically advanced weaponry (light sabres, laser weapons, battle droids), advanced cloning technology... yup, sounds like what modern science is working towards alright.

Star Wars may be primarily a fantasy story, but you can't deny it has strong science fiction traits. Besides, these movies were probably voted for by people who don't know the difference.

Cabaal

Not a bad list, I've seen all of them except for Solaris (1972)
The Day The Earth Stood Still is actually not to bad, I'd still like Aliens to be on the list

John

Speaking as a scientist, I disagree with Blade Runner being number one. Alien gets my vote, it may be a haunted house story but at least from a zoological point of view it's very interesting, many parasites go under a very similar life cycle (granted there's is less frightening as they don't tear out of the hosts chest and kill everything around them).

ixoy

Sico wrote:

Star Wars may be primarily a fantasy story, but you can't deny it has strong science fiction traits. Besides, these movies were probably voted for by people who don't know the difference.

Yes I can It has strongly classical sci-fi elements, of course but they're never even remotely explained. I'm talking about plausibility here, hard science. It may make some people go "ohhh I'd love to build that" without ever bothering to try and work out how it may be done (even using pseudo-science as many sci-fi shows today do). Hence it's more fantasy than sci-fi.
As to these movies being voted for by people who don't know the difference? Eh scientists voted for these movies... they know the difference. Or do you mean the choices were compiled by the clueless?

John

A lecturer of mine said that the best sci fi story is one that could be true, he was talking about the connection of Gattaca and the genetics he was teaching.

ixoy

John2 wrote:

A lecturer of mine said that the best sci fi story is one that could be true, he was talking about the connection of Gattaca and the genetics he was teaching.

Yup. If the poll were more about the science in science fiction (as opposed to the movies they just liked, which is what it was), then Star Wars would be displaced and the likes of Gattaca would make an appearance. 2001 is also, odd ending aside, scientifically accurate in many places. Gattaca's definetely an under-rated entry in the genre.

John

I've one major quibble with a lot of space movies (2001 didn't really have this problem). When two ships pass by each other they are both the right way up, surely from time to time they'd go past each other upside-down as they both have their own gravity machine things so it doesn't matter what orientation the two ships are to each other.


God I sound like a geek

mike65

John2 wrote:

I've one major quibble with a lot of space movies (2001 didn't really have this problem). When two ships pass by each other they are both the right way up, surely from time to time they'd go past each other upside-down as they both have their own gravity machine things so it doesn't matter what orientation the two ships are to each other.


God I sound like a geek

So true (not the geek bit!) and why are so many spaceships streamlined....?

Mike.

mycroft

Actually it was fairly extensively covered in the science supplement of the Guardian Science section. They listed the scientists and their fields, and they were not handed a list. The scientists ranged from quantum theory boffins to psychologists and neuro psychologists, to botanists.

Scientists like 2001 for it's unnevering accuracy. Apparently visiting Nasa experts called it Nasa East. Blade runner appealed to AI developers because of the empathy test cause they're developing experiments quite similiar to test systems. I liked how the Elo in The time machine were described as "mellow hippy guardian readers"

Essentially they had the scientists say why each was their favourite film, followed by some guff about the science of the film. Alien was rated highly cause it showed the mundanity of deep space space travel.

Look the poll was a bit of fun, Star wars was rated due to it being a guilty pleasure. It's the kind of vaguely high brow space fillers that papers like the Guardian have instead of oggling at Big Brother during August's silly season.

ObeyGiant

For those feeling a little annoyed by the non-appearance of Gattaca on the list, you should be aware that it came second in Wired's Top 20 Sci-Fi Movies a while back.

ixoy

Article can be read here.

nadir

John2 wrote:

Speaking as a scientist, I disagree with Blade Runner being number one. Alien gets my vote, it may be a haunted house story but at least from a zoological point of view it's very interesting, many parasites go under a very similar life cycle (granted there's is less frightening as they don't tear out of the hosts chest and kill everything around them).

thanks for your 'scientific' opinion. Acid blood that can melt though floors of steel. and an alien that can grow to 20 times it size in a matter of hours without food??? Good film but i'll take my chances with Blade Runner.

John

granted it took liberties but it's far better than Blade Runner, I didn't fall asleep during Alien.

nadir

maybe if you watched it you would rate it better

bizmark

mike65 wrote:

So true (not the geek bit!) and why are so many spaceships streamlined....?

Mike.

Well speaking for star trek all Starfleet ships are streamlined to allow a more effective warp field to allow the ship to go faster useing less power l

(Now THAT’S geeky!)

John

And why when they explode do they make a noise? Granted it would make a noise on the ship when it exploded but when they blow up and the camera is miles away you still get this
BOOM!!!!

Karl Hungus

John2 wrote:

And why when they explode do they make a noise? Granted it would make a noise on the ship when it exploded but when they blow up and the camera is miles away you still get this
BOOM!!!!

Actually, that's something that's always bugged me, but I have to go for the obligatory plug for Firefly and point out that they never have any sounds on external shots of spacecraft and such. No booms, no whooshes, no clangs.
Call me anal, but little details like that are great.

ixoy

Babylon 5 is actually quite faithful to science. The creator, JMS, has had consultations with NASA and the like on various issues - so the station, for example, rotates to generate its gravity. There's a load of other issues that he got quite correct. On the issue of noise in space, he says it's the one thing he had to give into - although he does try and say that if the shot is in close-up, you can hear the sound because there's air escaping during the explosion of a ship, for example. Beyond that though it's certainly one of the better examples.

projectmayhem

i wouldn't take much issue with the list to be honest. star wars is a bit of an annoyance. it's there more so for entertainment value, hopefully.

nadir

And why when they explode do they make a noise? Granted it would make a noise on the ship when it exploded but when they blow up and the camera is miles away you still get this
BOOM!!!!

Karl Hungus wrote:

Actually, that's something that's always bugged me, but I have to go for the obligatory plug for Firefly and point out that they never have any sounds on external shots of spacecraft and such. No booms, no whooshes, no clangs.
Call me anal, but little details like that are great.

yea, I agree, but sometimes you would get sound, an explosion is a rapid expansion of gas afterall, so if the gas were the medium, then the observer would hear it gushing past, also the same for engines, if the observer were in the path of an engine they could hear it, provided it emited some form of matter
hehe, pedantic i know, but ..... :eek:

elivsvonchiaing

I find the super-nova style explosions (a disc radiating outwards) when the ship clearly wasn't spinning to start-with, the most annoying

Deadwing

mike65 wrote:

Dr. Stephen Minger, a stem cell biologist at King's College London, told the newspaper.

m i the only one who finds this hilarious? *L*

Capt'n Midnight

John2 wrote:

And why when they explode do they make a noise? Granted it would make a noise on the ship when it exploded but when they blow up and the camera is miles away you still get this

Remember the tagline for Alien - In space no one can hear you scream.

Blade Runner is better than the original book, and I prefer the Harrison Ford voice over to the directors cut. [/heresy]

The alien was using "molecular acid" for blood, fine , but what's non-molecular acid ?